タキトゥスの「年代記」(4.1)とサッルスティウスの「カティリーナの陰謀」

スポンサーリンク

概要

• 論文の詳細を見る

• It is well-known that there are two Sallustian reminiscences(both from Catilina)in Tac. Ann.(4.1). The one is found in the opening sentence (turbare fortuna coepit, saevire ipse, modeled on Sallust's Catilina 10.1 saevire fortuna ac miscere omnia coepit). The other is found in the portrayal of Seianus(modeled on Cat. 5.1-6, the portrayal of Catilina). As is often said, these Sallustian reminiscences are not limited to verbal similarities. Tacitus seems to be strongly conscious of the context of each Sallustian passage. So in the former, he likens the change of Tiberius to that offortuna which caused the moral decline of Roman society after the Punic War. This suggests that Tiberius' reign turns for worse and he himself is responsible for such a change. And in the latter, Seianus is described as a second Catilina, who will cause a terrible disaster to the Roman State. However, along with Sallustian reminiscences, (4.1)shows some interesting ideas of Tacitus. So in the following, I will reexamine Tacitean accounts of(1)the change of Tiberius and(2)the portrayal of Seianus. In so doing, I hope to add somewhat to the general understanding above-mentioned. (1) The change of Tiberius. Here, I think it is useful to pay attention to the use of saevire. Saevitia is one of the chief vices(the others are superbia, libido etc.)for which Tiberius is criticized. But when Tacitus refers to Tiberius' saevitia through Ann. bkk. 1-3, he rarely provides any evidence of this vice. This coincides with his opinion that Tiberius initially dissimulated himself. So coepit saevire means that Tiberius at last began to reveal himself(i. e. his strong dissimulatio now weakened) and emphasizes the new-phase of his reign. Saevitia is also one of the most common attributes of tyrants. Accordingly, coepit saevire also means that Tiberius began to be tyrannical (cf. his outward show of respect for libertas through bkk. 1-3). The Sallustian reminiscence adds another impression to this. It has been pointed out that at Ann. (6.51) , again referring to Tiberius' change, Tacitus also echoes the Sallustian phrase which the latter used in the context of the end of Punic War and the degeneration of Roman society. So concerning Tiberius' change, Tacitus seems to adhere to the Sallustian estimation of the Punic War. Since in Sallust's works the end of the Punic War is a very important historical turning-point(cf. Iugurtha 41.2-5, Hist. Frag. 1.11, 1.12) , we may think that Tacitus is indicating that Tiberius' change was as important as the former. That a princeps at first rules moderately(concealing his real nature)but later he becomes tyrannical is a recurrent theme in the Annales. Therefore, Tiberius' change is not limited to his own personal matter but it is the opening of an evil habit of principatus which will be repeated later(also in Tacitus' own time, by Domitian). So at(4.1), alluding to Sallust, Tacitus seems to say that there comes another important stage for worse in Roman history. (2) The portrayal of Seianus When we closely compare both character-sketches, we find that against expectation there are not so many common points(except for physical ones, audacity, dissimulation, and of course both are leaders of a conspiracy). As the arrangements in both character-sketches agree and the styles are much alike, we tend to make much of the similarities between the two. However, the portrayal of Seianus has some important points in common with Tiberius' character. Like Tiberius, he conceals his real intention(sui obtegens. This is in common with Catilina, too. However, with the following similarities, the relation to Tiberius seems to be more important). Moreover, he shows himself modest(palam compositus pudor)like Tiberius who often mentions his own modestia, moderatio, pudor. Seianus is also arrogant (superbia, as mentioned above, one of the chief vices of Tiberius). Above all, he shares saevitia with Tiberius(saevire ipse aut savientibus vires praebere). Concerning this, we can quote Ann.(4.68). Here too, Titius Sabinus criticizes Seianus for his saevitia and superbia. Indeed, through bk. 4 Seianus increasingly came to play the part of Tiberius. But he desired too much. He wanted to be a ruler himself and initiated a conspiracy through which he, like Catilina, caused great damage to the Roman State. In short, the echo of Catilina at(4.1)seems to indicate not so much the similarities of character between them as the similarities in their influences upon the State. In this sense, the difference between Cicero and Sallust is instructive. For Cicero, in defending himself, emphasized that the State had been saved from destruction, while Sallust describes the misery of the slaughter between fellow countrymen. Likewise the conspiracy of Seianus did not end with his execution. It involved many other people and caused further slaughter between fellow-citizens, this time by prosecutions.

• 1997-03-10

著者

• 根本 和子

  東京大学

関連論文

• タキトゥスの「年代記」(4.1)とサッルスティウスの「カティリーナの陰謀」
• Anthony J. Woodman & Ronald H. Martin edd. with a Commentary, The Annals of Tacitus Book 3., Pp. xx+514, Cambridge Classical Texts and Commentaries 32, 1996
• 書評 R. Mayer, ed., Tacitus, Dialogus de oratoribus. Pp. 9+227, Cambridge Greek and Latin Classics 2001
• Stephen P. Oakley : A Commentary on Livy Books VI-X, Vol.II : Books VII-VIII., Pp.xiii+866, Clarendon Press. Oxford, 1998.
• S.P. Oakley, "A Commentary on Livy Books 6-10 vol.1, Introduction and Book 6"〔和文〕

スポンサーリンク